Beauvoir v. Doe
9:14-cv-01495
N.D.N.Y.Sep 26, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Jimmy Beauvoir, a New York state prisoner, sued correctional staff alleging Eighth Amendment excessive force and Fourteenth Amendment false imprisonment arising from a September 13, 2014 incident at Bare Hill C.F.
- Defendants (correction officers and a lieutenant) moved for summary judgment arguing (1) the record contradicts Beauvoir’s claims and (2) Beauvoir failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA.
- Beauvoir did not oppose the summary judgment motion or otherwise submit materials contesting defendants’ statements of fact.
- Magistrate Judge Peebles recommended granting summary judgment based on failure to exhaust: Beauvoir did not appeal grievances to CORC, and CORC records showed no final-level appeals.
- District Judge D’Agostino reviewed the R&R for clear error (Beauvoir filed no objections), adopted it in full, granted defendants’ motion, and ordered judgment for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Beauvoir exhausted administrative remedies under the PLRA before filing suit | Implicitly contends exhaustion was sufficient by pursuing grievances at lower levels (no opposition to motion filed) | Did not appeal to CORC; therefore did not complete required three-step process | Plaintiff failed to exhaust; summary judgment for defendants |
| Whether administrative remedies were "available" under Ross v. Blake | Plaintiff did not assert unavailability or obstruction | CORC process was available and not opaque; plaintiff used first two steps, so third was available | Remedies were available; Ross exception did not apply |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given pro se status | Pro se leniency should apply to filings | Plaintiff still required to follow procedural rules and contest summary judgment evidence | Pro se status did not excuse failure to oppose; summary judgment appropriate |
| Whether defendants met their burden to show failure to exhaust | N/A (no opposition/evidence contesting defendants’ record) | Submitted CORC database printouts and affidavits showing no CORC appeals | Defendants satisfied burden; uncontroverted record supports granting summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. TRM Copy Ctrs. Corp., 43 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1994) (summary judgment standard and inferences for nonmoving party)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment and genuine issue of material fact standard)
- Giannullo v. City of N.Y., 322 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2003) (court must verify record citations when nonmovant fails to contest facts)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (exhaustion is an affirmative defense; defendant bears burden to plead it)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (exhaustion requires compliance with procedural rules)
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002) (PLRA exhaustion applies to all inmate suits about prison life)
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (2016) (limits to exhaustion are only when administrative remedies are not "available")
- Giano v. Goord, 380 F.3d 670 (2d Cir. 2004) (exhaustion required even for monetary relief)
- Hemphill v. New York, 380 F.3d 680 (2d Cir. 2004) (framework for special-circumstances exception later addressed by Ross)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se submissions are to be read liberally)